Jesus Christ Libertarian Superstar?
I’m not what I would consider a terribly religious man. I neither go to Church nor pray. But I respect those that do because I think there is a subtle but persuasive philosophical case to be made for a God. Even if a God doesn’t exist I certainly won’t hold it against Him.
But I do rather like Christianity. Of course I rather like a lot of aspects about many religions. If religions didn’t have at least a few attractive qualities no one would follow them, would they? I’m not much of a theologian, much of my biblical study coming from watching Secrets of The Bible, Banned From the Bible, and Charlton Heston films. But on this Easter Sunday I offer the following proposition: Jesus, if alive today would be a libertarian. Perhaps that’s hard to imagine given the history of Christianity which until recent centuries was generally associated with a totalitarian concept of society ( I use the term “totalitarian” in it’s original sense, without negative connotations but merely in the sense of a society in which nothing is excluded, i.e. “Christendom”) and in more recent times with political leftism ranging from the mildly progressive of “mainline Protestant Churches” to the rabid communism of some Roman Catholic segments. I’d also not leave out the reactionary-socialism of many other smaller “conservative” denominations and sects.
I do not mean to tar an entire religion here, merely point out that where Christianity and political ideology entwine the result is, often enough, some form of anti-liberalism. This is only natural considering that religions, ipsos factos, lay claim to absolute truth, at least the main Western religions.
So given the that Christianity has for many centuries been a community based, indeed I would even say socialist in the non-political sense, religion (Eastern Churches are especially known as being communal in character, as is Roman Catholicism) how can I claim Jesus would have been a libertarian? Well, I shall turn to the Bible, for I think I can demonstrate persuasively that Jesus was both an advocate of limited government and strong property rights, both essential tenets of the Classical Liberal.
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” — John 18:36
This is Jesus’s reply to Pilate when asked if he is “King of the Jews”, according to John. Taken at face value this seems like a clever evasion of Pilate’s question and Christian theologians have, of course argued it’s meaning and debated it’s relevance to the issue of separation between Church and State. But considering the time this is truly a remarkable statement for the implications we may draw from it.
In the Ancient world there wasn’t just a lack of Separation, rather Church and State were synonymous to a large degree. Religion was a matter of state, especially in the Roman World. Priests were essentially civil servants, gaining office through political appointment and the civil authorities literally had the power to deify (e.g. Gius Julius Caesar’s deification among many others). To be a citizen of a state was to be a practitioner of the religion and to be a practitioner of a religion made you a part of the state.
By claiming that his “kingdom is not of this world” Jesus implies that some matters are beyond the authority of God. They are the affairs of men. And because God and the State are essentially one in the same we can draw the further implication that if some matters are beyond the hand of God they are beyond the hand of the state. In other words what Jesus is saying is that the state should mind it’s own business. It’s a revolutionary concept, the idea that there even exists some realm of human affairs that are strictly the business of the people and not of higher authority, either earthly or heavenly.
Jesus, of all people, would clearly understand the dangers of excessive government. Here he was, after all, just going about his Father’s business when, suddenly he was seized by the authorities and brought before Pilate. Jesus could hardly be an advocate of strong government after becoming a victim of arbitrary and unjust government.
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s — Matthew 22:21
This is Jesus’s response when questioned by a group of his detractors who tried to trick him by asking him if the Jews ought to continue paying taxes to Rome ( any unambiguous answer would have likely lead to Jesus’s arrest). Jesus’s reply is quite cunning and traditionally it is believed that he held up a Roman gold coin which was stamped with the image of Tiberius Caesar to emphasize the point to give Caesar that which was his. This is also an important incident in the aforementioned age-old question of the role of Church and State. But I think a much simpler interpretation maybe made. Jesus was advocating strong property rights.
In saying that people should render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s that those things which justly are the property of someone, be it Caesar, God, or anyone else are exactly that: Justly their property. One can neither despoil Caesar of what is his rightful due than one can despoil God.
Of course Jesus is not clear on exactly how we define property rights. Hoe exactly do we tell the difference between Caesar’s property and Gods? But if the tradition of Jesus holding up a coin to demonstrate that it was Caesar’s then I would venture a guess that Jesus would say that property rights are defined typically by general agreement by private members of a society. Jesus held the coin, everyone agreed it belonged to Caesar, hence it should to him be rendered.
So here is my case for Jesus’s concurrence with two major tenets of classical liberalism / libertarianism. I await my galero from the Pope.
